Too many gun owners don't believe in that. And after they shoot someone, they know the right things to say. "He was reaching for something." And, "I was afraid for my life."
And here's more of your insinuating that a shooting was a case of first degree murder followed by a lying cover up. In this case, the father was waiting for the cops to come and arrest this person who, according to what his daughter was saying, had apparently broken in and was raping her. Tragically, the kid was probably reaching for his pants or a phone, but given the circumstances, it's easy to understand how everyone was probably angry and how things got out of hand.
This is a horrible tragedy, but it rests firmly on the shoulders of the 16 year old girl for lying about her boyfriend, making him out to be a home invading rapist, pissing of both him and their father and putting them both on edge.
Regardless of the facts of the case, the (perceived) intruder was likely committing/attempting to commit rape/sexual assault as defined under Texas Law, and thus the father of the child may have been using reasonable force to stop the commission of a violent felony.
Simon, the girl said, according to the reports that she didn't know the boy. That's a far cry from "was raping her." Why do you always have to exaggerate and twist things to justify the shooters?
The bottom line is an unarmed kid what shot and killed by an armed adult. That's an unnecessary killing no matter how you slice it.
He's in her bed, and in the article I'd read, the father barged into the room because another child had reported hearing the daughter in bed with someone--it seems something sexual was going on, so when you have the girl claiming it's a stranger, that implies that the sexual activity, whatever level it had risen to at this point, was non-consensual. This isn't exaggeration and twisting--it's merely speculating on the conclusions the father may have drawn from the information we're told he had on hand.
As for your bottom lining the situation, it oversimplifies the analysis and skews justice. This case--we're still waiting for the rest of the fact. Facts as they are make me sympathetic to the father, but we'll see if other stuff comes out. Dunn Case--no weapon found, actions imply his escalating case and then not dealing with police. Testimony that there wasn't a gun in the car, didn't tell gf. about it--lots of evidence he was in the wrong. Case like what Zimmerman claimed--regardless of the number of witnesses in a hypothetical case where an unarmed youth attacked a man and started beating him bloody, your rule would still find the man guilty if he shot the youth.
Your rule would find some innocent people guilty, prejudice the court against people like this father who has yet to make his case and face any evidence against him, and cheapen the conviction of people like Dunn.
"Your rule would find some innocent people guilty, prejudice the court against people like this father who has yet to make his case and face any evidence against him, and cheapen the conviction of people like Dunn."
Why do you always look at things from the perspective of the gun owner. When an armed man shoots an unarmed man, you should look at it from the perspective of the one who is shot. He's the victim, not the poor persecuted gun owner.
It's not about looking at it from the perspective of the shooter because he's a gun owner. It's about evaluating the case according to the law. Our laws ask if the shooter was reasonably in fear for his life, the life of another, etc. so you have to look at it that way.
Why would be base a person's guilt or innocence on the perspective of the person who was shot? They have no way to know what that person knows or to know what that person is thinking, so it is unfair to judge them by that. The textbook example you'll hear in law school is cases where someone had an airsoft gun with the tip painted black, or a gun carved from soap and painted to look real. If someone shoots him, we don't ask if the shooter was in any danger, we ask if he reasonably thought he was in danger.
It's the same principle, just in a less clear cut case, that has to be determined in a case like this. Was there reasonable fear on the part of the person claiming self defense.
In case that was all off topic for your question and you were talking less specifically about the frame of reference for a determination of self defense and more about some perception that I'm taking the side of the gun owners: first, did you not see where I said that the evidence I've seen indicates Dunn was in the wrong? You quoted part of it.
Second, in these cases I'm discussing whether the person being accused is guilty or not, so I tend to take the side of the accused, whether a gun owner claiming self defense, or an unarmed person fighting drug charges or charges of resisting arrest, etc. I try to look at it presuming evidence and seeing if the evidence we're given indicates guilt or not.
The boy who got shot here is beyond our aid, and that is a horrible tragedy. Now we have to determine if there is criminal wrongdoing on the part of the guy that shot him. I think, based on the few facts we know, that he may have a case for self defense--that doesn't mean that I think he's innocent, just that I'm refusing to jump to conclusions.
When Dunn was first charged, I'd have said the same--he had a potential case. The investigation and trial revealed more facts, and now I'm convinced that his case fell apart and I also want justice for young Mr. Davis. The same could happen here.
I want to see justice done, above all. I just refuse to prejudge a situation because the guy who got shot turned out to be unarmed. Is this case a tragedy? Yes. But the question is whether it's one the courts can remedy by convicting this man, or would that be a case of two wrongs not creating a right.
Sorry Simon, I find your claims of impartiality unconvincing. The fact that you're willing to withdraw your support for Dunn isn't worth much. His was a blatant case of abuse. But your unflagging support of every other trigger-happy gun owner who claims, however implausibly, that he feared for his life is evidence of your own fanaticism and bias.
What was your take on the murdered Alzheimer's sufferer, I remember Greg's adamant defense of the shooter. What was your position on that one?
This is a sad situation all around...with out having spoken with the people in the home we don't really know what transpired in the home other than what we have heard on the news so judging the home owner this early is the wrong thing to do. But it may turn out it did happen the way you are assuming it did or it may not. Interesting though how you chose to share just this story and not include the two stories of people defending their homes with firearms that are on the same web page this morning.. I wonder why that is. I'm sure you will know to say those stories were not up when you posted this video
Simon is quite correct. All the young man had to do was wait for the police to arrive and he could have likely eventually walked away. Instead he got angry and started to argue with a man who believed he was an intruder. This isn't a stand your ground case, stand your ground applies outside the home. The police had forensic evidence and three witnesses to the events that lead to the shooting. And the case isn't closed. It will be going before a grand jury for a final determination. Here's a final question Mike, how is it that this explanation is acceptable for police officers to use, and yet for some reason you're skeptical when a citizen uses it. What exactly do you think will happen if you reach for something when a policeman is holding a gun on you?
It doesn’t matter if the perceived intruder was indeed a forceful intruder. Based on the facts presented, it appears likely that he was in the commission of or attempting to commit rape/sexual assault -a violent felony- as defined under Texas law. The father would be justified in using reasonable force to halt the perpetration of the violent felony upon his daughter, regardless of the location or other incidental circumstances.
Yes, it could be a lie, which is why we need an investigation to determine what happened, and a trial if it looks like he's lying.
However, you've dismissed all of that out of hand as something unnecessary. You want to hang him (figuratively--we know your opposition to capital punishment) based solely on the fact that the dead guy was a minor and we know, after the fact, he was unarmed.
Here's another question for you, Simon. When cops shoot people who were "lunging" at them or "reaching for something," are you as steadfast in your support of them as you are of civilian gun owners who do this?
Mike, the problem with this is that the police go through a very different procedure and mind-set when they shoot someone in the line of duty. This starts out with the presumption that the shooting was truly justified. The officer isn't arrested, he isn't jailed, he goes through a mostly administrative procedure. The hearing he appears is likely an internal hearing which has no obligation to release any more than an announcement of its determination. While the officer is waiting for the hearing, he still draws a paycheck. There was much hue and cry about the friendly treatment George Zimmerman received from the police after he defended himself, yet in fact, he was cuffed and taken to the station. This doesn't happen to law enforcement. In fact, one could say that police officers have been working under the stand your ground law for quite some time. Yet, they don't have the same burden of proof that they were justified as someone who isn't a police officer. In this case, there were several witnesses to either corroborate or refute what the father said.
Self defense is self defense, so yes, I try to approach it with the same presumption of innocence and then evaluate the credibility of their claims in light of the other information we have.
There's a possibility of lying in either case, which is why we have investigations to check if there were witnesses, what they saw, etc. To see, in the case of officers, how they were conducting the stop that led to a shooting--was it pursuant to law and procedure, or were they on a power trip, etc.
Why do you dismiss the need for an investigation and just demand that we decide that this guy MUST be guilty because of the age and retrospective unarmed status of the deceased?
Well, part of my thinking is that when one guy has a gun and the other guy does not, and the unarmed guy is dead on the floor, and the gun owner SAYS the dead guy was reaching for something and I was afraid for my life, I don't buy it.
I don't dismiss the need for an investigation. Where did you get that one from? Did you make it up in an attempt to exaggerate my true position? You really can't help yourself, can you?
You have repeatedly told us that the only thing we need to know is the gun owner is alive and an unarmed kid is dead. You pre-judge these cases based on those facts and cry foul if the investigation or a trial doesn't result in a charge and conviction.
Sure, you want an investigation, but you want one that reaches your conclusion which has already been made without the actual NEED for investigation.
I'm getting tired of your mischaracterizing what I say and pretending to read my mind to know what I think. I object to a lengthy investigation PRIOR to arresting an obviously responsible person. Your charge that I want an investigation that reaches my conclusions is totally unfounded.
I'm getting tired of your mischaracterizing what I say and pretending to read my mind to know what I think.
Oh, coming from you--the guy who shrieks in mortal anguish about "accusations" in my questions--that's just about the funniest thing I've ever read.
There are very few people here who don't realize you much prefer arguing with what you claim we think, rather than with the arguments we actually make.
You're forgetting all of the times you have complained about investigations saying: What could there possibly be to investigate?
Like in this case here.
And where we have pointed out all of the things that need to be investigated to determine whether or not the person should be charged, or in some of the cases, which person should be charged.
For another example, I remember a case where you wanted a guy at a gun show charged when there was an ND into the ceiling there, and we pointed out that it was possible some other idiot put the round in the chamber and that they needed to see if the guy who picked up the gun fired it, or if it could have happened because of a mechanical failure (unlikely but possible) or by some other mechanism such as the dowels or cables sometimes run through the trigger guards. There wasn't much info to go on, but it would be a shame to arrest and charge the guy who picked it up if someone else put the round in the chamber--either a patron or the seller--and the gun went off when he picked it up and the security cable pulled the trigger.
You keep trying to modify by saying you only want the obviously guilty arrested, but your definition of obvious is pretty thin.
"There are very few people here who don't realize you much prefer arguing with what you claim we think, rather than with the arguments we actually make."
Kurt, that's an embarrassing attempt at accusing me of what you're guilty of. And the most embarrassing party of it is you're using the same words I've used against you guys many times.
Well, the black man who tragically shot and killed someone was not arrested, so no need to claim "racism" in this Texas case. Oh, but wait, the deceased was also black, so the lack of an arrest means the police don't give a damn about a black kid being shot, because in the South, whatever happens, it's always due to racism, right,. Mikeb?
Two possible outcomes (arrest/no arrest) directly opposed, and both mean the same thing, right, Mikeb?
No, not always, Kurt. But, very often. You did notice that I didn't say anything about racism in this case. I'm beginning to think you're obsessed with the subject.
Greg beat me to it. I don't need to be "obsessed with the subject" of race--you have that thoroughly covered all by yourself.
I am inclined to point out the utter ridiculousness of your position that arresting a black person for an unintended shooting and not arresting a black person for an unintended shooting are both "racist."
I'll never forget a guy in my freshman Political Science class who declared that MLK's I have a dream speech was naive wishful thinking and that the only hope for the future was a strong, permanent affirmative action system. In the course of his pontificating he waxed eloquent about how it was impossible for people to not be racist and mistreat people with differing amounts of melanin. So much for the nobility and progress of man--it's being increasingly left behind by the leftist humanists for a picture more bleak than that held by most Calvinists.
Yes, Anonymous, it has. That being said, will it be forever needed, or do you conceive of a time when judgment by content of character rather than the color of skin will be prevalent enough to not need it? That was the discussion in that class. The guy was saying that that was impossible--not that we hadn't reached that point yet, but that we never could or would.
And here's more of your insinuating that a shooting was a case of first degree murder followed by a lying cover up. In this case, the father was waiting for the cops to come and arrest this person who, according to what his daughter was saying, had apparently broken in and was raping her. Tragically, the kid was probably reaching for his pants or a phone, but given the circumstances, it's easy to understand how everyone was probably angry and how things got out of hand.
ReplyDeleteThis is a horrible tragedy, but it rests firmly on the shoulders of the 16 year old girl for lying about her boyfriend, making him out to be a home invading rapist, pissing of both him and their father and putting them both on edge.
Regardless of the facts of the case, the (perceived) intruder was likely committing/attempting to commit rape/sexual assault as defined under Texas Law, and thus the father of the child may have been using reasonable force to stop the commission of a violent felony.
DeleteSimon, the girl said, according to the reports that she didn't know the boy. That's a far cry from "was raping her." Why do you always have to exaggerate and twist things to justify the shooters?
DeleteThe bottom line is an unarmed kid what shot and killed by an armed adult. That's an unnecessary killing no matter how you slice it.
He's in her bed, and in the article I'd read, the father barged into the room because another child had reported hearing the daughter in bed with someone--it seems something sexual was going on, so when you have the girl claiming it's a stranger, that implies that the sexual activity, whatever level it had risen to at this point, was non-consensual. This isn't exaggeration and twisting--it's merely speculating on the conclusions the father may have drawn from the information we're told he had on hand.
DeleteAs for your bottom lining the situation, it oversimplifies the analysis and skews justice.
This case--we're still waiting for the rest of the fact. Facts as they are make me sympathetic to the father, but we'll see if other stuff comes out.
Dunn Case--no weapon found, actions imply his escalating case and then not dealing with police. Testimony that there wasn't a gun in the car, didn't tell gf. about it--lots of evidence he was in the wrong.
Case like what Zimmerman claimed--regardless of the number of witnesses in a hypothetical case where an unarmed youth attacked a man and started beating him bloody, your rule would still find the man guilty if he shot the youth.
Your rule would find some innocent people guilty, prejudice the court against people like this father who has yet to make his case and face any evidence against him, and cheapen the conviction of people like Dunn.
Under Texas and Federal Law, it appears that he was, in fact raping her.
Delete"Your rule would find some innocent people guilty, prejudice the court against people like this father who has yet to make his case and face any evidence against him, and cheapen the conviction of people like Dunn."
DeleteWhy do you always look at things from the perspective of the gun owner. When an armed man shoots an unarmed man, you should look at it from the perspective of the one who is shot. He's the victim, not the poor persecuted gun owner.
Why do you always look at things from the perspective of the gun owner.
DeleteUm, because that's who is facing possible prison time?
Nothing one does now is going to help the dead kid--not even imprisoning someone without regard to whether or not he has earned a prison sentence.
Mike,
DeleteIt's not about looking at it from the perspective of the shooter because he's a gun owner. It's about evaluating the case according to the law. Our laws ask if the shooter was reasonably in fear for his life, the life of another, etc. so you have to look at it that way.
Why would be base a person's guilt or innocence on the perspective of the person who was shot? They have no way to know what that person knows or to know what that person is thinking, so it is unfair to judge them by that. The textbook example you'll hear in law school is cases where someone had an airsoft gun with the tip painted black, or a gun carved from soap and painted to look real. If someone shoots him, we don't ask if the shooter was in any danger, we ask if he reasonably thought he was in danger.
It's the same principle, just in a less clear cut case, that has to be determined in a case like this. Was there reasonable fear on the part of the person claiming self defense.
In case that was all off topic for your question and you were talking less specifically about the frame of reference for a determination of self defense and more about some perception that I'm taking the side of the gun owners: first, did you not see where I said that the evidence I've seen indicates Dunn was in the wrong? You quoted part of it.
Second, in these cases I'm discussing whether the person being accused is guilty or not, so I tend to take the side of the accused, whether a gun owner claiming self defense, or an unarmed person fighting drug charges or charges of resisting arrest, etc. I try to look at it presuming evidence and seeing if the evidence we're given indicates guilt or not.
The boy who got shot here is beyond our aid, and that is a horrible tragedy. Now we have to determine if there is criminal wrongdoing on the part of the guy that shot him. I think, based on the few facts we know, that he may have a case for self defense--that doesn't mean that I think he's innocent, just that I'm refusing to jump to conclusions.
When Dunn was first charged, I'd have said the same--he had a potential case. The investigation and trial revealed more facts, and now I'm convinced that his case fell apart and I also want justice for young Mr. Davis. The same could happen here.
I want to see justice done, above all. I just refuse to prejudge a situation because the guy who got shot turned out to be unarmed. Is this case a tragedy? Yes. But the question is whether it's one the courts can remedy by convicting this man, or would that be a case of two wrongs not creating a right.
A good example of why you were missed, Simon. Well said.
DeleteSorry Simon, I find your claims of impartiality unconvincing. The fact that you're willing to withdraw your support for Dunn isn't worth much. His was a blatant case of abuse. But your unflagging support of every other trigger-happy gun owner who claims, however implausibly, that he feared for his life is evidence of your own fanaticism and bias.
DeleteWhat was your take on the murdered Alzheimer's sufferer, I remember Greg's adamant defense of the shooter. What was your position on that one?
This is a sad situation all around...with out having spoken with the people in the home we don't really know what transpired in the home other than what we have heard on the news so judging the home owner this early is the wrong thing to do. But it may turn out it did happen the way you are assuming it did or it may not. Interesting though how you chose to share just this story and not include the two stories of people defending their homes with firearms that are on the same web page this morning.. I wonder why that is.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you will know to say those stories were not up when you posted this video
I didn't see those other stories. Why don't you provide us with links?
DeleteSimon is quite correct. All the young man had to do was wait for the police to arrive and he could have likely eventually walked away. Instead he got angry and started to argue with a man who believed he was an intruder.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a stand your ground case, stand your ground applies outside the home. The police had forensic evidence and three witnesses to the events that lead to the shooting. And the case isn't closed. It will be going before a grand jury for a final determination.
Here's a final question Mike, how is it that this explanation is acceptable for police officers to use, and yet for some reason you're skeptical when a citizen uses it. What exactly do you think will happen if you reach for something when a policeman is holding a gun on you?
It doesn’t matter if the perceived intruder was indeed a forceful intruder. Based on the facts presented, it appears likely that he was in the commission of or attempting to commit rape/sexual assault -a violent felony- as defined under Texas law. The father would be justified in using reasonable force to halt the perpetration of the violent felony upon his daughter, regardless of the location or other incidental circumstances.
Deletess, we don't KNOW that he was reaching for something. The killer said that, which you must admit, might very well be a lie to justify what he'd done.
DeleteWhen cops say that I have equal doubts.
Yes, it could be a lie, which is why we need an investigation to determine what happened, and a trial if it looks like he's lying.
DeleteHowever, you've dismissed all of that out of hand as something unnecessary. You want to hang him (figuratively--we know your opposition to capital punishment) based solely on the fact that the dead guy was a minor and we know, after the fact, he was unarmed.
Here's another question for you, Simon. When cops shoot people who were "lunging" at them or "reaching for something," are you as steadfast in your support of them as you are of civilian gun owners who do this?
DeleteMike, the problem with this is that the police go through a very different procedure and mind-set when they shoot someone in the line of duty. This starts out with the presumption that the shooting was truly justified. The officer isn't arrested, he isn't jailed, he goes through a mostly administrative procedure. The hearing he appears is likely an internal hearing which has no obligation to release any more than an announcement of its determination. While the officer is waiting for the hearing, he still draws a paycheck.
DeleteThere was much hue and cry about the friendly treatment George Zimmerman received from the police after he defended himself, yet in fact, he was cuffed and taken to the station. This doesn't happen to law enforcement.
In fact, one could say that police officers have been working under the stand your ground law for quite some time. Yet, they don't have the same burden of proof that they were justified as someone who isn't a police officer.
In this case, there were several witnesses to either corroborate or refute what the father said.
Self defense is self defense, so yes, I try to approach it with the same presumption of innocence and then evaluate the credibility of their claims in light of the other information we have.
DeleteThere's a possibility of lying in either case, which is why we have investigations to check if there were witnesses, what they saw, etc. To see, in the case of officers, how they were conducting the stop that led to a shooting--was it pursuant to law and procedure, or were they on a power trip, etc.
Why do you dismiss the need for an investigation and just demand that we decide that this guy MUST be guilty because of the age and retrospective unarmed status of the deceased?
DeleteWell, part of my thinking is that when one guy has a gun and the other guy does not, and the unarmed guy is dead on the floor, and the gun owner SAYS the dead guy was reaching for something and I was afraid for my life, I don't buy it.
DeleteI don't dismiss the need for an investigation. Where did you get that one from? Did you make it up in an attempt to exaggerate my true position? You really can't help yourself, can you?
You have repeatedly told us that the only thing we need to know is the gun owner is alive and an unarmed kid is dead. You pre-judge these cases based on those facts and cry foul if the investigation or a trial doesn't result in a charge and conviction.
DeleteSure, you want an investigation, but you want one that reaches your conclusion which has already been made without the actual NEED for investigation.
I'm getting tired of your mischaracterizing what I say and pretending to read my mind to know what I think. I object to a lengthy investigation PRIOR to arresting an obviously responsible person. Your charge that I want an investigation that reaches my conclusions is totally unfounded.
DeleteI'm getting tired of your mischaracterizing what I say and pretending to read my mind to know what I think.
DeleteOh, coming from you--the guy who shrieks in mortal anguish about "accusations" in my questions--that's just about the funniest thing I've ever read.
There are very few people here who don't realize you much prefer arguing with what you claim we think, rather than with the arguments we actually make.
You're forgetting all of the times you have complained about investigations saying: What could there possibly be to investigate?
DeleteLike in this case here.
And where we have pointed out all of the things that need to be investigated to determine whether or not the person should be charged, or in some of the cases, which person should be charged.
For another example, I remember a case where you wanted a guy at a gun show charged when there was an ND into the ceiling there, and we pointed out that it was possible some other idiot put the round in the chamber and that they needed to see if the guy who picked up the gun fired it, or if it could have happened because of a mechanical failure (unlikely but possible) or by some other mechanism such as the dowels or cables sometimes run through the trigger guards. There wasn't much info to go on, but it would be a shame to arrest and charge the guy who picked it up if someone else put the round in the chamber--either a patron or the seller--and the gun went off when he picked it up and the security cable pulled the trigger.
You keep trying to modify by saying you only want the obviously guilty arrested, but your definition of obvious is pretty thin.
"There are very few people here who don't realize you much prefer arguing with what you claim we think, rather than with the arguments we actually make."
DeleteKurt, that's an embarrassing attempt at accusing me of what you're guilty of. And the most embarrassing party of it is you're using the same words I've used against you guys many times.
Well, the black man who tragically shot and killed someone was not arrested, so no need to claim "racism" in this Texas case. Oh, but wait, the deceased was also black, so the lack of an arrest means the police don't give a damn about a black kid being shot, because in the South, whatever happens, it's always due to racism, right,. Mikeb?
ReplyDeleteTwo possible outcomes (arrest/no arrest) directly opposed, and both mean the same thing, right, Mikeb?
No, not always, Kurt. But, very often. You did notice that I didn't say anything about racism in this case. I'm beginning to think you're obsessed with the subject.
DeleteObsession with race is something you would understand, Mikeb.
DeleteGreg beat me to it. I don't need to be "obsessed with the subject" of race--you have that thoroughly covered all by yourself.
DeleteI am inclined to point out the utter ridiculousness of your position that arresting a black person for an unintended shooting and not arresting a black person for an unintended shooting are both "racist."
It's the leftist assertion that everything is about race. Facts aren't important in these claims. One just has to feel that racism must be the cause.
DeleteI'll never forget a guy in my freshman Political Science class who declared that MLK's I have a dream speech was naive wishful thinking and that the only hope for the future was a strong, permanent affirmative action system. In the course of his pontificating he waxed eloquent about how it was impossible for people to not be racist and mistreat people with differing amounts of melanin. So much for the nobility and progress of man--it's being increasingly left behind by the leftist humanists for a picture more bleak than that held by most Calvinists.
DeleteStatistics prove that affirmative action has cut discrimination, especially institutional discrimination.
DeleteYes, Anonymous, it has. That being said, will it be forever needed, or do you conceive of a time when judgment by content of character rather than the color of skin will be prevalent enough to not need it? That was the discussion in that class. The guy was saying that that was impossible--not that we hadn't reached that point yet, but that we never could or would.
DeletePlease do a follow up on this story. I would like to know if the girl changes her story.
ReplyDelete